What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
242 Comments
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -7/+184this is ***** ridiculous.
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -5/+182SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.
PWNED. - hode, on 10/12/2007, -13/+152"Wake up and smell the Hitler."
- jdb252, on 10/12/2007, -5/+133You're absolutely right. Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Thanks for keeping up on the law, Attorney General Gonzales. - Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+104Sounds like Gonzalez is splitting hairs, and stretching the language to suit his agenda. I believe his whole argument is rooted in the Constitutional language, "The privilege of habeas corpus..." rather than, "The right to habeas corpus...."
It's a weak argument that is repudiated by 230 years of judicial precedent. - cdlavalle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+76Treasonous bastard. Look at that smug little smirk on his constitution raping face. The democratic congress should take all of these adminisration shenanigans and arguments and use them to shore up the constitution where it is "weak". I am sure they would get huge support from both sides of the aisle if they wanted to put an even more explicit right to habeus corpus as an amendment to the constituion. There is probably at least a half a dozen other places where this same thinking can be applied. Have turn this nightmare negative into a positive for our posterity. Protect our grandchildren's grandchildren to smug legal loophole worms like we have "serving" us right now.
- Yankeluh, on 10/12/2007, -7/+72This guy was a ***** moron here in Texas. Where did he get his law degree, off the internet?
- sbassin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+65"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
If we don't all stay on the ball about this, the government will gladly take away as much of our freedom as it can. The mainstream media has been pretty much useless when it comes to defending freedom lately. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -8/+61But he has committed a crime. He's denied the writ of habeas corpus, in violation of his duty to uphold and defend the constitution.
- shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57Impeach the bastard. Is it really a surprise that he doesn't understand that the right of habeus corpus would then be implied?
- heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48All right Bush supporters, even YOU guys have to admit this is a bit troubling...
- Darko, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40There's nothing after the "um". Specter was immediately hauled off and thrown in jail.
- OnAnyMouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Arrest him. He isn't necessarily guaranteed Habeas Corpus.
- brlittle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35Perhaps someone should just habeas his corpus off to Gitmo. *****.
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28You vote.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -8/+34"The U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. citizens..."
Ask what's left of US Citizen Jose Padilla about how well the constitution is being applied and enforced by this administration. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30@mcraigw: The Constitution applies to everyone, except where otherwise noted. Look to case law wherever it's not clear to you whether Constitutional protections extend only to citizens or to aliens as well-- the courts have had plenty of time to hash most of it out.
- MysticSavage, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Hollywood Upstairs Medical College also has a law division.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25From Salon.com...
By Gonzales' logic, after all, the Constitution doesn't offer an "express grant" of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; it simply says that the government shall not take those rights away.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/01/19/gonzales/index.html - iancgi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28On electronic voting machines owned by companies that pay for top republican election campaigns. We lost the right to vote in 2000, when they made us believe somehow an electronic voting machine with no paper trail was more reliable then the old fashion way.
- aresef, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27No, but he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
/Thank you, I'm here all week. - uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21I want my ***** country back.
- LegalSatire, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Sure, you can call it a privilege, that's fine. But it has a very clearly delineated set of stipulations for its removal, none of which have been met. In all respects, it functions like a right, except in those circumstances.
You can argue nomenclature, but the end result is the same: there is no justification for its removal. Period. - repins, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29The U.S. Constitution does not apply to US citizens it outlines the powers or lack there of that the Federal Government has.
- bullish1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Your the MORON!
Right or privilege doesn't matter. The Constitution still says it can't be taken away.
Get a brain and stop playing games. The language is very clear. - iancgi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Notice the way he word his responses. "I believe...." "I think...."
They don't do that by mistake. - sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16The only reason the term privilege is used is so that they can suspend habeous in times of invasion or rebellion.
Privileges can be suspended, rights are inherent and can not be. - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Oh so now everyone gets pissed off - where were you guys when my rights (legal immigrant) to Habeas Corpus were stripped from me? (yeah I know you will digg me down, but it really had to be said)
- haggie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Kinda reminds me of the Pink Panther scene:
Man: "Does your dog bite?"
Clouseau: No
Man pets dog. Dog bites man.
Man: You said your dog doesn't bite!
Clouseau: That is not my dog.
Man: So government can't take away my right to free speech?
Gonzales: Correct!
Man: Ok, I choose to excercise it. Down with Bush!
Gonzales: Arrest that man, he's a terrorist.
Man: What about free speech?
Gonzales: Government can't take away the right to free speech that doesn't mean you have the right of free speech!
Also, insert a conversation between Yossarian and Doc Daneeka. - ScionAltera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Please note: I am not a lawyer. I am a computer programmer. Convoluted logic is what I do for a living.
The constitution says that habeas corpus is a privilege that cannot be taken away (except in an invasion/rebellion where the public safety requires it).
Gonzales claims that the constitution does not grant habeas corpus. It merely states that habeas corpus cannot be taken away if you have it. His position must be (for his argument to make any sense at all) that the prisoners in gitmo never had habeas corpus to begin with because it was not granted to them by the constitution... so the US never took it away from them because they never had it in the first place.
Senator Specter takes the position that because the constitution says habeas corpus cannot be taken away, everybody must have it.
I happen to agree with Specter because I believe that is the spirit in which that portion of the constitution was written. I don't think anybody would have written that sentence without the (admittedly) unstated assumption that everybody gets habeus corpus. The unstated assumption is supported by the supreme court case that Senator Specter references, which says that the prisoners in gitmo are granted habeus corpus by the constitution. From a literal perspective, Gonzales may be correct if he can convince anyone that the constitution does not grant habeus corpus (and merely prevents it being taken away). I would like to believe that any judge would agree with the senator in this case. - LegalSatire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Where is the rest of this interview, after the "um"? That clearly wasn't the end of the discussion. You can't leave it on a cliffhanger like that!
Did he recoup? Did the senator grill him more? There's gotta be some goodies after the cut. - mcraigw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16
So what exactly does it mean when it says "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."? I (obviously) didn't major in English or constitutional law. What would be some examples be of when "the public safety may require it"? - edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Is Gonzales even a citizen?!?
Seriously, we need to have this guy removed. And if we can swing it, tarred and feathered on the White House lawn as well. Rubber stamping every illegal and unconstitutional thing that Bush brings his way needs to have some sort of repercussion. - UberNick, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20The only ones this should be troubling to is the terrorists
/sarcasm - ernkush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@yoshi
Abraham Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War since that was in effect a rebellion. - Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18*crickets*
- writerboyVSgod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Specter owned him.
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"constitution raping face"
ROFL. - faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Stop separating the words "invasion" and "the public safety may require it". With all of the other "safety" quotes outlined for us in the Constitution, I don't believe anyone designing it meant anything like 9/11. To say they did, or to twist it around to suit your kind of logic is law whoring. Nothing less. Not what our founding fathers wanted. Keep in mind, all of Gonzales' previous statements, and GW's "it's just a goddam piece of paper, and you know exactly where their mind is. Up their ass with the rest of their heads.
- OnAnyMouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Strictly speaking, he is accurate, but incorrect. The Constitution RECOGNIZES rather than GRANTS rights. Taken in context with the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
People have (for better or worse) declared themselves free from religion, but that does not mean that they have no creator. Whether they believe that their creator was Jehova, FSM, or primordial ooze, Mom and Dad, Mom and Frozen pop, Sperm and Egg, a glob of organic material, sentient, unsentient , willing or not, there was SOME precursor to their being. People are free to call that (WHATEVER THE HECK IT IS) their creator. But they have rights, regardless of whether those right are recognized or not.
Certain regimes have denied rights to millions of other peoples based on gender, race, and religion. The denied rights still exist, even though they are denied. For instance, Jewish people during the Holocaust had no less right to life (though that right was violently and dishonestly denied) than they had in any other place and any other time in history. - flizzomynizzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12A privilege is certainly a "right with conditions," but the Constitution stipulates exactly the conditions under which that privilege can be revoked!
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The clear implication is that habeas corpus can *only* be suspended during brief periods of civil unrest -- that's why there's an explicit reference to rebellion and invasion. The wording is only there to provide a legal framework for declaring martial law in the most dire circumstances, and it wasn't even invoked during the British invasion of 1812.
Mr. Gonzales's position, no doubt, would be that since we're in a state of war, blah blah blah. This is ***** because the "war on terror" is a perpetual war that can't be definitively won. He is therefore arguing that this "privilege" should be indefinitely denied, when any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution states that such denial should be temporary and rare. Gonzales is a disgrace to his country and a traitor to the spirit of the Constitution. He should just step aside as Attorney General if he holds the document he's sworn to protect in such contempt. - naldwell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Well, you better get on that quick or that other bit of the constitution, the right to protect yourself from an oppressive federal government will be next.
I live in New Zealand, and the stink from your country is almost unbearable here. I don't know how you cope... - cuddleparty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11this is sickening. the constitution is disappearing, i'm worried. aren't you? you should be. the general public is ignorant to that fact and it pisses me off even more when they label someone who is a tad bit concerned as a member of the tinfoil hat brigade.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13And yet, regardless of what you call it, the Constitution declares that it shall not be suspended except during rebellion or invasion - neither of which have occurred.
Not yet, at least. Keep it up, and there might be a rebellion. - heaintheavy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Aren't you the type that was blasting Clinton for what the definition of "is" is?
You might as well say, "well, it is a piece of paper, and since you can't really be guaranteed anything by a piece of inanimate paper, then the Constitution doesn't matter." - einsteinx2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14FTLJohnson: Do you understand what the words "shall not be suspended" mean? I dont give a ***** if it's a writ or a right it is still a protection granted by the constitution. ***** the word games.
BTW: "WRIT - A judicial order. A formal written command, issued from the court, requiring the performance of a specific act. A mandatory precept issued by the authority, and in the name of the sovereign or the state, for the purpose of compelling the defendant to do something therein mentioned."
Note the words "mandatory" and "requiring the performance of a specific act". Hence, the "writ of Habeas Corpus" is a mandatory rule set down by the constitution. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I really don't know where people get this *****. Do you just make it up, or did some other fool teach it to you?
The Constitution recognizes universal rights, and protects them universally from US governments, except where explicitly noted. - polypropglop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11And Bush was going to nominate this guy for the Supreme Court? ><
- rtini, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The article headline misquotes Gonzales. He correctly states that the constitution doesn't expressly grant the right to habeas corpus, only that it states that it can't be taken away. He's being a weasel, and he summarily gets called on it. Since the constitution says it can't be taken away, it logically follows that we have it. To argue otherwise makes you look like a, uh, Gonzales.
I think this guy is a jerk, but there is no need to misquote him to resist his pathetic attempts at chipping away our civil liberties. -
Show 51 - 100 of 248 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is